Last Friday, I organized “venture ideas @ EPFL” with Jordi Montserrat from venturelab. We had the opportunity to have great entrepreneurs from Minsh, Poken, Basisnote and the 20 winners of the ventureleaders program.
Last but not least, Neil Rimer, founder and general partner of Index Ventures shared his thoughts about Thinking Bigger.
More on the EPFL’s venture ideas page and the past events.
Créateurs, a local newsletter asked me to write short articles about famous success stories. I decided to begin with Adobe and its founders John Warnock and Charles Geschke. You will find the full text below as well as the usual data I like to give about start-ups: the capitalisation table of the company at its IPO and how shareholding evolved from foundation to public offering. Here is the article you may found in french in the Newsletter.
John Warnock and Charles Geschke: Adobe
Start-ups are very often associated to their founders. Entrepreneurs such as Steve Jobs or Bill Gates are obviously linked to the company they created. John Warnock and Charles Geschke may be less famous but their story is as fascinating.
Without the profile of the atypical entrepreneur (they are not “school dropouts” who launched their venture in their twenties), Warnock and Geschke founded Adobe Systems in 1982 when they were more than 40-year-old. Adobe is famous for some of the most popular software worldwide such as Acrobat and Photoshop.
From the printer to the printing protocol
It all began in the 70’s, at the renowned Palo Alto Research Park of Xerox, the vendor of copy machines. The two engineers are more and more frustrated. Xerox may have enabled the development of the computer mouse, word processing, email or Ethernet, but it has been incapable of transforming them in commercial products. Warnock and Geschke cannot convince their management of the potential of their research. “Part of it was fear and misunderstanding” but they also admit that “in fairness to the management, I think we as researchers were a little naïve about what it would take to get these things from conceptual operating prototypes all the way to full-production, supportable products. But we sort of hoped that they would hire the people who could do that.”
They left Xerox in 1982 and raised $2.5M to develop their project: high quality printers and a system which connect them to computer networks. When they met potential customers (Apple, Dec), they discovered that nobody is really interested. Steve Jobs explains to them that he needs their printer protocol, Postscript, for the Macintosh he is developing. They immediately change their business plan. Adobe became a software company with the success we all know.
Some good advice
Their vision of what is an entrepreneur is enlightening. It was more an accident than a destiny. But today their advice is worth reading.
You should always be flexible. You should try and explore many solutions, test them with customers and abandon the wrong ones very fast. They have the same views on the personality of entrepreneurs: “99% of founders fail because they cannot change and want to control too much”.
Passion, risk taking and self-confidence seem to be the critical strengths of entrepreneurs combined with intelligence and hard work. “But this is not sufficient. Luck also plays a major role.
When their age and experience is mentioned, Geschke adds that “I don’t think there’s any mystery in running a business. I think it helped that we were in our 40s, that we had worked for a variety of organizations. We had worked in other companies, but tried to leave their bad ideas as proprietary to them. We tried to pick the best things that we saw.” What is essential is to have a vision of what you want to do. “I am not a hunter, never have fired a gun, but I’m told that if you want to shoot a duck, you have to shoot where the duck is going to be, not where the duck is. It’s the same with introducing technology: if you’re only focused on the
market today, by the time you introduce your solution to that problem, there’ll probably be several others already entrenched.”
The ingredients of success
From the initial frustration which is at the origin of their departure from Xerox to the success of Adobe, the lessons are many. Never be a one-product company; technology cannot be simply transferred, you need to add brain power, hire good professionals; and as founders, you need to have “the intellectual capability, inherent honesty, ethical behavior and principles by which we lead [your] personal and business lives.”
In a few sentences, the ingredients of success are numerous, complex as well as simple and probably common to all great entrepreneurs.
To know more about Adobe:
The Revolutionaries: www.thetech.org/exhibits/online/revolution
Adobe Systems, Computer History Museum: www.computerhistory.org
Founders at Work, J. Livingston, Apress (2007)
In the company of Giants, R. Jager and R. Ortiz, Mcgraw-Hill (1997)
Next Article: Bob Swanson: Genentech
Now the cap. table in 1986
and the shareholding structure from 1982 to 1986:
An interesting post from the interesting web site Xconomy.
Robert Beyster gives his views about how much stock a founder should keep and his answer is….
“8 to 10 percent of their company”.
This is quite an unusal piece of advice as most accounts on the topic try to maximize the stake. Beyster focuses on value creation and incentives to all parties.
This is consistent with what I teach about equity (see the post equity split in start-ups dated October 30, 2008).
As I mentioned in my previous post about returns of venture capital, I was lucky enough to see the performances of Kleiner Perkins first fund (launched in 1972). Here is the slide I discovered in mid-December.
I was extremely surprised to find such data. They are usually difficult, not to say impossible to get. I asked the author where he got them. He thought he had read them from a book by a Kleiner Perkins partner. I contacted him and he replied: “Not possible that it came from me. I don’t have such information. Not sure I have ever seen the returns for KPCB 1. I don’t know where the information could have come from.” Too bad.
I also try to “measure the bars” and rebuild what it could have meant in terms of numbers. Here are my measures.
A couple of comments (if we admit all this is true):
– Genentech and Tandem were two home runs (out of 17 deals).
– Even if these two had not worked, the fund value would be $17.8M, i.e. a 2.8x multiple. This would have been a decent return compared to even the best VC funds…
But is this true? You will have to wait for episode 2!
Following a few case studies I posted earlier this year (Kelkoo, Skype, mysql), here is a more generic analysis about the process of equity splitting. The document is a pdf file I have used a number of times with students, entrepreneurs and I think it is helpful even if not new. At the end, there are also cap tables of other famous and less famous start-ups.
From the inception where a few founders share the initial equity between them to the exit (IPO or M&A) through a possible number of financing events, shares of a start-ups will be shared, distributed among founders, employees and investors. It is one of the most important decisions in a company’s life and should be handled with care.
An interesting interview of the Google founders dated 1998!
Quite interesting lessons:
About the network of people: “Sergey: Basically, we talked to our advisers and other faculty whom we knew. And they just pointed us to other people. Pretty soon, we had investors, we had a lawyer, we had everything that we needed.”
About risk taking: “Larry: Silicon Valley is a little bit different. There’s not so much risk to us. If you fail in starting your company, you’re actually more fundable. You may have failed for some reason not involving yourself at all, just [due to] some random factors... Sergey: The main risk is really our time. We’re working much, much harder than we would in a normal job. It’s not a 40 hour a week job.”
There’s been plenty of activity in search in the recent years so entrepreneurs are apparently not afraid of Google. Today, a new one appeared, with a lot of Venture Capital: cuil. What is most remarkable is that the founders left Google… good luck!
Not related is the release of Ilog being acquired by IBM for $340M. Ilog was one of the European success stories. After the acquisition earlier this year of mysql by Sun, another European company is acquired by an American giant…
Kelkoo is a great case study. It was one, not to say the, success story of the Internet in
The capitalization table and the figures below show the evolution of the numbers. I am aware that these data are dry, tough to read, but if the reader accepts to follow me, he or she may find them of interest. Let us begin by the last table which describes the financing rounds. In 1999, Kelkoo was founded by five individuals (Chappaz, Lopez, Amouroux, Odin and Mercier) and immediately financed by two venture capitalists (“VCs”): Banexi and Innovacom. The two funds provided €1.5M in December 1999 (A round) and then a little more than €4M in March 2000 (B round). There is an important detail to notice: there was a 1 to 50 stock split between the two rounds; it explains the huge difference in the numbers as well as the fact that the price per share of €24.67 of the A round is equivalent to €0.50 after the split. The price per share of the B round was €1.45. The five founders had shared their stock as 1/3 to Chappaz, 1/3 to Lopez and the remaining between the three others. However options were granted to Chappaz and Mercier at B round to give a new founders’ balance. The pies below give therefore different ratios. Dominique Vidal is not a founder but was working with Banexi when Kelkoo was founded. He joined the founders to become a managing director and received initially 338’000 shares. He received more shares with time but the final number is not known (so I make an assumption in his case). Finally a stock-option plan was created to incentivize employees. Those had virtually 19% of the company at round B. We were only in March 2000 and the data are already complex. The capitalization table can be read on the right part with number of shares or on the left part as percent of the company.
(Click on pictures to enlarge or download)
The situation is even more complex with the acquisitions. First DondeCom (
Yahoo bought Kelkoo for €475M meaning a price per share of €5.7 if the reader accepts that the total number of shares is correct. The last column therefore gives the value of their shares for all stockholders (but it does not indicate it much these cost; this cost would have to be deducted to know the profit before tax). I can not be too far from real numbers but as I said with my previous examples (Skype, mysql) these numbers are never sure at 100%. The capital increases are however well described in documents from the register of commerce that I bought for this study. The exact number of exercised shares is however unsure. These documents were my only source of information for this study. The history of Kelkoo is also written in the book “Ils ont réussi leur start-up” at Village Mondial (Pearson
Source: www.euridile.fr
(Click on pictures to enlarge or download)
Following the mysql case, here is the Skype capitalization. Skype was founded in November 2003 and acquired by eBay in September 2005 for about $2.6B. The deal was complex as it had a cash component as well as an equity one and because there was an upside potential, up to $4B. The SEC document said “Skype shareholders were offered the choice between several consideration options for their shares. Shareholders representing approximately 40% of the Skype shares chose to receive a single payment in cash and eBay stock at the close of the transaction. Shareholders representing the remaining 60% of the Skype shares chose to receive a reduced up-front payment in cash and eBay stock at the close plus potential future earn-out payments which are based on performance-based goals for active users, gross profit and revenue.” In October 2007, eBay announced the final earn-out to be $530M. I consider here the acquisition was $2.6B.
The two founders, Janus Friis (Danish) and Niklas Zennström (Swede) were the previous founders of Kazaa and had created a holding company, Maitland Holdings, which would own their founder’s shares in Skype. It is not clear if other people had shares in Maitland and I made the assumption that the team of Estonian early developers (Toivo Annus, Jaan Tallinn, Pritt Kasesalu and Ahti Heinla) had such shares but it is possible they had options only. Because the sharing is unknown, I plainly assume that the two founders had about 40% each and the Estonians shared equally the remaining 20%. This is not fully consistent with SEC documents where the Estonians seem to have 5.6% of the eBay shares at acquisition. But I could not find hard facts. However the number of common shares, stock options and preferred A and B shares comes from Legilux, the
Skype had two main rounds and also a seed round before the creation of the company (a convertible loan). The Legilux documents help is assuming that Skype raised €600k of seed money in 2002-2003 with Bill Draper and other angels, its first round of €1.5M in Nov. 2003 (led by Mangrove and Bessemer) and a €14.5M B round in March 2004 (led by DFJ and Index Ventures). The number of shares and the amounts in each round imply in each case a specific price per share.
Skype seemed to have a strong board with its investors, Tim Draper (DFJ), Danny Rimer (Index) and Mike Volpi (Cisco). Volpi later became CEO of Joost, Friis and Zennström’s new venture. Skype had about 200 employees at acquisition; its revenues were $7M in 2004 and expected to be $60M in 2005.
Click on pictures to enlarge or download
Sources: SEC, Legilux, Kazaa and Skype, Eestit Ekspress
Next posts: Kelkoo, Addex.
Nurturing Science-based Ventures – An International Case Perspective by Seifert, Ralf W., Leleux, Benoît F., Tucci, Christopher L.
A new book about start-ups has recently been published and it is mainly centered on Swiss (including EPFL) ventures. The authors do indeed have a strong knowledge of this environment as they are faculties from IMD or EPFL. What is unique with this book is that it does not describe success stories only, but also failures or not famous firms. Indeed failures are often better lessons than successes. You do not always know why you succeed and it may be easier to understand a failure. The authors have built their book as a process and describe in detail the development of start-ups; they begin with the opportunity recognition (chapter 1), they follow with writing a business plan (chapter2), financing a start-up (chapter 3), growing a company (chapter 4) to finally harvesting value creation (chapter 5). The final chapter is dedicated to corporate entrepreneurship (“Intra-preneurship”). I have not read it yet (it is more than 700 pages!) but the numerous case studies (more than 20) look rich and detailed. It is not the first book on the subject but it might be the first one with such a focus on European start-ups.
